Draft Lottery

[O.city]

Should the NFL have a draft lottery, NBA style?

Why or why not?

[duncan_idaho]

Absolutely ****ing not.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by wheatie

Bottom two teams battle it out the last week of the season for the right to draft first. Or make it a 4 team playoff, for the first four picks. That way teams would have to try and win a least once. I've seen two many teams shut down their high priced players to avoid injury and guaranteed contracts. There is a big difference between drafting 1st and 4th.

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think there was a short experiment in the 1950s where the regular draft started with the second pick, and the first pick was a pure lottery among all the teams. Let me see if I can find out what happened. I only read it about once a long time ago, and have never heard anything more about it.

I'm not really sure what a lottery solves on first glance. Without a lottery, you might tank to get a higher pick. With a lottery, you might tank for a chance at a higher pick. The strategy is the same, except the lottery adds a little more risk. But I'm not sure that would really change the minds of teams who would be inclined to tank.

Maybe a better approach would be to move your draft spot up by one if you win on the final week of the season. That would prevent weak teams from tanking and strong teams from sitting starters. You'd have a little bit of math to adjust for the fact that half the teams will win, but that's easy to solve.

The two of us agree on a late-season winning contest to keep teams from tanking, and on average we have over 70,000 posts. So we must be correct.

[TLO]

No

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by RunKC

10 years ago the Eagles, Chiefs, Bills and Lions fans had never seen their teams win a Super Bowl. Now 2 of those teams have, the 2 others are Super Bowl contenders and teams like the Bengals played in a Super Bowl recently.

Long suffering teams like the Commanders finally got a QB and were a game from the Super Bowl.

How can you say that isn’t parity? If anything, we’ve learned that bad ownership is the primary cause of futility

I dunno, you mentioned a 10 year span and said two surprise teams won the Super Bowl... and those two teams have combined for 5 of the past 10, and Tom Brady accounted for 3 more.

The Lions have beat one team with 10+ wins in the playoffs (and they were 10-7) the past two postseasons, same with the Commanders.... the NFC is pretty shitty, so I'd agree there's parity in the sense that some shit team has to play in the NFCCG and meet up with the one SB contender.

[Chris Meck]

No.

In the NFL, if your team sucks ALWAYS, it's poor management. There is every opportunity to improve, and it's rigged in such a way as to be extremely difficult to stay on top.

Even though it would be to OUR benefit in these Mahomes years, I am against it.

I like that it's hard.

[PHOG]

Simply, no.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

No.

In the NFL, if your team sucks ALWAYS, it's poor management..

This applies to every sport doesn’t it?

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

Originally Posted by O.city

If it's better to lose games, your sport has an issue.

It's not, really.

Is there a recent example where tanking on purpose was beneficial in the NFL? Because I can't think of one.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz

It's not, really.

Is there a recent example where tanking on purpose was beneficial in the NFL? Because I can't think of one.

I think there was a lot of discussion of "Suck For Luck" back in the day. I thought Luck was overrated, but he was still a starting quarterback for several years.

[kccrow]

I wouldn't be opposed if it only included the top 5 teams or so. In that case, it wouldn't be something profound like in the NBA or NHL, where a team that's in the middle of the pack gets the #1 pick. The top 5 teams would at least stop pure tanking because there wouldn't be any guarantee that you get the #1 pick.

Just do something like 10 balls, choose 3. That gives you 120 possibilities. Give each of the top 5 a set of 24 combinations.

Anything beyond that I'd be absolutely opposed to.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz

It's not, really.

Is there a recent example where tanking on purpose was beneficial in the NFL? Because I can't think of one.

You might see it next year with a good QB class.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz

It's not, really.

Is there a recent example where tanking on purpose was beneficial in the NFL? Because I can't think of one.

I don't think an NFL team has ever employed it as a season or multi-season strategy. Teams have tanked a final game of a season though..

MLB and NBA have examples of teams using it as a team building strategy.

For example in MLB Tampa, KC, Cubs and Astros all did it..Chicago and Houston it was a legit strategy for Tampa and KC incompetence turned into looking like a strategy.

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

Originally Posted by Mecca

I don't think an NFL team has ever employed it as a season or multi-season strategy. Teams have tanked a final game of a season though..

MLB and NBA have examples of teams using it as a team building strategy.

For example in MLB Tampa, KC, Cubs and Astros all did it..Chicago and Houston it was a legit strategy for Tampa and KC incompetence turned into looking like a strategy.

I'm not asking if anyone's ever done it. I'm asking if it's ever truly worked.

I can't think of a time a team intentionally tanked and got rewarded with a generational player that changed all their fortunes.

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think there was a lot of discussion of "Suck For Luck" back in the day. I thought Luck was overrated, but he was still a starting quarterback for several years.

And then that organization completed wasted him by forcing him to play hurt and doing next to nothing to help him.

Incompetent organizations are the ones that tank because they're bad enough to do so. The problem is, once they get their golden boy, they're still incompetent and will waste it away immediately.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz

I'm not asking if anyone's ever done it. I'm asking if it's ever truly worked.

I can't think of a time a team intentionally tanked and got rewarded with a generational player that changed all their fortunes.

Depends on if you believe the 1997 Colts that went 3-13 were that much worse than the 1996 Colts that went 9-7 with mostly the same players and the 1995 Colts that had even less talent and went 9-7. Same QB, better Marshall Faulk, better Marvin Harrison, etc.

If they didn't flop for Peyton Manning, then I'm not sure if anything else would ever be believable. They certainly threw games at the end of the 2011 season to get Luck, who would have likely been generational if he played a full career.

Outside of the Colts, I'm not sure of any clear-cut cases. Most teams suck at least for a year or two before they get the #1. I'm sure we could look back and find some teams tanking a few games to get a top 3 pick or something and give themselves a shot.